Assess The Validity Of Wikipedia

Impartiality should be an area where Wikipedia really flourishes. With so many voices contributing to the ultimate output individual biases and cultural perspectives would be rounded over and neutralized. One of the five pillars Wikipedians (what contributors call themselves) are expected to follow is not sharing unpublished results or promoting their personal theories. This sounds very noble but these are amateurs, people who by definition are passionate about a topic. If you are so passionate about a given subject that you donate you time and knowledge how can you be impartial even if you try. “All articles in Wikipedia should be impartial in tone and content” (Logan, D.W. p2)

“As educators, we are in the business of reducing the dissemination of misinformation,” said Don Wyatt, chair of the department. “Even though Wikipedia may have some value, particularly from the value of leading students to citable sources, it is not itself an appropriate source for citation,” he said.

Wikipedia is a commonly used site when people are surfing the web. The accuracy of the information on the Wikipedia site is often questioned because anyone with access to the Internet can make changes to Wikipedia’s articles by either contributing anonymously, or with their real identity if they would like. To test Wikipedia’s accuracy of information I have chosen to research Spina Bifida and compare Wikipedia’s information on this topic with multiple other sources that are credible.

Buddha once said, “Believe nothing, no matter where you read it or who has said it, not even if I have said it, unless it agrees with your own reason and your own common sense.” Thousands of years later this is still relevant and gives an important to today’s youth: don’t believe everything you hear. Today, many adolescents use websites like Google and Wikipedia to help them research for any projects. They see it as a quick way to answer any question because all they have to do is type in the question and write down what the screen tell them. Little do they know, they could be writing down false evidence simply because they trusted the internet. Wikipedia is not appropriate for academic research because it can be edited and posted by anyone and false information can stay on the site for months before being corrected.

When students are doing research on the internet, Wikipedia is usually one of the first site to appear. For students, the site is usually tempting to click, but they are quickly reminded by their teachers that Wikipedia should not be used as a site of knowledge. They label the site as inaccurate, unreliable, and uncreditable. In Boyd’s article she writes that teachers consistently tell students to stay clear of Wikipedia at all cost. Students should not have to see the site as tempting. They should be allowed to use it and embrace the site. Wikipedia has so much educational potential and should not be ignored by teachers. Boyd also writes that some analyses have shown that Wikipedia’s content is just as creditable as, if not more reliable than, more traditional resources.

Eventhough, the internet can be helpful with education, it can also be unreliable. However, “The Hive” by Marchall Poe, was the openness of Wikipedia. Wikipedia is an online encyclopedia that anyone can use it. This might work for some people specially that ones who attend school or college. This is very helpful for them because in Wikipedia you can search or find anything you would like. Since anyone can write, or delete or use information off of Wikipedia, it makes it less controversial because anyone can put their input into the website. If don’t agree with something, that’s alright because you can add your own opinion. Poe describes how authors of certain wiki pages write with a bias to support their facts. Facts become opinions when feelings and emotions of bias get involved. “Instead of relying on experts to

The biggest forms of information given to you through using the internet would include blogs, podcasts, and videos. The sources I use to evaluate when doing research on the internet is authenticated speaker, speaker qualified, authority, other found credible sources, accuracy, last revision, and it’s current these are some factor I could think of. The topic I chose has credible sources and also reliability sources that are already evaluated and uploaded on podcast, blog, and video.

Objectivity states that there are ethical principles that are always wrong or always right and they are normally established a priori i.e. without experience. Therefore as there are

The article "Why You Can't Cite Wikipedia In My Class" is based on writer Neil L. Waters’s belief that the website Wikipedia.com should not be utilized as a academic research source in the article Waters describes what he finds are the strengths and weaknesses of the site. He argues the open source structure of the website is the best and worst feature of Wikipedia. Water states “Wikipedia is not an acceptable citation, even though it may lead one to a citable source.” His reasoning behind this quote is that any individual can edit the articles and provide inaccurate information that may later be used in an academic paper, which he provided an example of. The author also goes on to explain his role in a policy adopted by the university he worked

Wikipedia first off is an online encyclopedia where you can get useful information. It is known as a special type of website that is really designed to make it easy for a person to research information. This website is sometimes reliable but may not be as reliable as people claim it to be. When you’re in the younger grades such as sixth or seventh grade they make sure that your sources on papers should not use Wikipedia because some of the stuff they put on their website can be false information. They want you to find your information from other websites and if you do use Wikipedia your paper won’t count or your paper will have a deduction of points. They do this because Wikipedia is known to have false information, it’s so easy to corrupt

One of the reasons Wikipedia works so well is the fact that it is not only an online encyclopedia but how it is referenced for information. The information found on the website has a lot of substance and facts that are useful for anyone looking up articles. It is the largest and most popular online encyclopedia with millions of volunteer contributors and is published in hundreds of languages. Wikipedia is straightforward and simplistic in technology to make browsing easier for novices or experienced users alike. A lot of volunteer contributors contribute to Wikipedia and the data is constantly updated with current events. Another question would be, “Why do people write or contribute their knowledge for Wikipedia without credit?” Since

Although Wikipedia’s reliability remains questionable, its obvious success cannot be denied as it has created an environment in which users can freely share their ideas in an easiest and most convenient way. It is the first site to pave the way for knowledge and information sharing by making use of users worldwide. By attracting contributors and inviting them to share knowledge without forcing them into bearing any commitments, the site now encompasses an unbelievably huge amount of global knowledge. This is its most remarkable success. Wikipedia now is playing an important role in the global process of sharing and receiving knowledge with many languages supported. Ranked as one of the most frequently visited sites on Earth, Wikipedia is still

One criticised: Your writing, has enormous grammatical mistakes and issues Another replied: Because I am a Wikipedian. However, you seem Wikipedian too? One criticised:

Badke (2008) begins his article reminding us that Wikipedia although controversial is still the online encyclopedia of choice by 36% of the United States population according to Pew Internet & American Life Project’s findings. (As quoted by Badke, para. 1)

The Wikipedia is a free, online encyclopedia that lets every individual with Internet connection write and edits its articles. Jimmy Wales and Larry Sanger launched their creation in 2001 giving an opportunity to all willing people to work together to develop a common resource of knowledge. Many people have different believes and ideas about Wikipedia, therefore, some tend to think of it as a credible and valid source of information, others strongly disagree. “Since all the books and articles have been chosen for publication, each one has presumably undergone some form of selection and review” (Spatt, 2011, “p.”339-340). Unfortunately, this statement is simply not enough to